DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
                     DISCHARGE REVIEW
                   DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

  ex-PFC, USMC
Docket No. MD03-00151

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review, received 20021101, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to JBK – involuntary discharge at end of obligated service.  The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review.  The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030926.  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB.  The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character and narrative reason of the discharge shall not change.  The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1.  Post Service conduct is consistent with an Honorable Discharge

Since leaving the service I have become a productive member of society.  I have been gainfully employed, furthered my education, established a family, and actively worked and volunteered in the communities in which I have lived. I have been working as a home health aide for the past six years.  In this capacity I have been responsible for the care and comfort of those who cannot care for themselves.  This has included both physically and mentally disabled persons and has included service-connected and non-service-connected disabled veterans.  I have performed in a variety of situations without fail or hesitation in the execution of my duties.  This has been recognized by my employers and each of my postservice employers has repeatedly recognized me for being willing to volunteer my time and energy to complete tasks that were either not anticipated or were the result of other staffing difficulties. Since leaving the service, I have bettered myself through education.  This includes major coursework at Northern Virginia Community College, Yavapai College, and Northern Arizona University.  I completed a Career Studies Certificate in Camp Management from Northern Virginia Community College, a Certified Nursing Assistant Course Completion Certificate from Loudoun County Long Term Care, I am completing my final year in the Nursing Program at Yavapai College that will result in receiving licensure as a Registered Nurse in Arizona following completion of the State Board of Nursing application and passing the licensure exam in June of 2003, finally I am completing a Bachelor of Arts decree at Northern Arizona University with an anticipated graduation in May of 2003.
While in school I have volunteered with groups on campus as well as community organizations.  These have included volunteer and seasonal work with the Boy Scouts of America.  I have performed volunteer work with Catholic Charities of Baltimore, United Blood Services of Arizona, Student Nurses Association of Yavapai College, Recreation and Parks Society of Northern Virginia Community College, Kilmer Center of Fairfax County, and non-organizational volunteer work in the communities in which I have lived. I have been married for the past five years and have a newborn son.  While in and of itself this may not seem to be pertinent, I believe it is.  The discharge that I have received has followed me since my leaving the service and is a black-eye on my honor and by extension my son's honor.  My family has served honorably in the armed services in every conflict since this nation's inception and during several periods of peace, I alone have served without receiving an Honorable Discharge.  The shame associated with this is inequitable with the offenses that I committed in the service and is noted in Issue Six on form DD 293 (encl. 1) included in this package. I have included four letters of reference (encl. 12-15), two from employers, one from an instructor, and one from a personal reference.  Two of these letters are from current or former officers in the United States Armed Forces that indicate their opinion of my character.  They have all alluded to my willingness to volunteer, my honesty, and my commitment to the welfare of others.

2.  The events that resulted in a General Discharge were isolated events that resulted from a lack of appropriate maturity and have not been repeated in the seven years that I have been out of the United States Marine Corps. The events that I understand lead to a General Discharge as opposed to an Honorable Discharge were the result of a lack of maturity on my part and have not been repeated in the past seven years.  The event was isolated to an action that occurred with Cpl. C_ and led to my last Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) before being discharged.  I was told by my executive officer, Cpt. W_, that I wasn't getting a recommendation for an Honorable Discharge in addition to my reduction in rank.  While this was not stated by Maj. A_ directly, I believe that Cpt. W_s’ statement made it clear that my discharge status was being used as a further punishment.  The punishment of a permanent branding of dishonor is inequitable given the offense and the surrounding circumstances as I noted in the enclosed Application to Request Mast (encl. 10).  I sent it to my Commanding Officer by way of CWO2 R_, my platoon leader, immediately following the offense but before my NJP dated September 5, 1995 and received no response.  In addition, my appeal to the 2d Force Service Support Group regarding my discharge (encl 11) following notification of separation proceedings (encl. 4) went unanswered.

3.  The diagnosis of a Personality Disorder was inappropriate and was not reviewed by a Medical Discharge Board prior to the discharge processing by my command
This discharge was processed without review by any Medical Board as evidenced by LT.  N_'s form letter dated August 10, 1995 (encl. 7) and LT. C_'s recommendation (encl. 5) and the subsequent addendum to his recommendation on August 31, 1995 (encl. 6).

4.  Upon notification of my seeking medical assistance for a possible depressive disorder, my command sought to discharge at the lowest characterization of service possible  Once my command was notified that I had sought treatment for a nondescript flu-like illness that may have been a depressive disorder and was referred for psychological counseling I was targeted for discharge by my command.  The notification had occurred on June 8, 1995 and almost immediately actions that would have been considered simple mistakes became major offenses.  This included operation of a government vehicle that I was not formally licensed to operate.  I had been told by Sgt. D_ that I had a "shop license" to operate vehicles on the shop lot, when I operated the vehicle improperly that resulted in minor and temporary damage to a pair of bay doors, I received an adverse counseling statement.  In addition, the 'profane language' on government property was on a piece of scrap metal and was something that was immature and would have led to nothing more than an informal counseling by a Non-Commissioned Officer had I not been receiving treatment from the psychology department at the Naval Hospital at MCAS Cherry Point.  This can be further demonstrated by my nomination for my detachment's Marine of the Month in the prior month by my shop and the apparent exemplary performance prior to this notification by LT.  C_ of treatment. These 'incidents' were followed by the alleged 'suicide' attempt that resulted in sleep deprivation for 39 hours and being convicted of an unauthorized absence the following morning after I had overslept.  In this incident I had been ordered by Cpl. N_ to clean out the sump pit, a pit that collects the sludge waste from vehicle and engine cleaning, I complied.  While cleaning out the pit it was noted that I had climbed into the pit to better remove the sludge.  This prompted S-t.  Enoch to order me to the Emergency Room for 'attempted suicide' after telling Sgt. E_ that I did view suicide as a 'viable option', though I repeatedly denied that my being in the sump pit was an attempted suicide.  LT. C_ was on leave and I was transported to Camp Lejeune for psychiatric evaluation.  Upon arrival to Camp Lejeune I was advised by the nursing staff that I was not permitted to sleep until I wrote a statement for LT. N_ to review the next morning.  I declined for fear that any such statement would be used against me as had my discussions with LT. C_.  The nursing staff refused to let me sleep and when I did see LT.  N_ the next day he discharged me from the hospital without performing any psychiatric testing and noting that I was "fit for full duty" as noted by the physician's progress note (encl. 8).  I finally returned to MCAS Cherry Point at 2000 after no sleep for the previous 39 hours.  I woke up late the next morning and was promptly charged with unauthorized absence for being twenty minutes late for formation on August 11, 2002.  I was convicted of the charge on August 23, 2002 through a Non-Judicial Punishment Proceeding.  This 'exacerbating factor' was relied upon by my command to discharge me and LT. C_ promptly concurred with my commands request that I be discharged.  I was sentenced to 30 days in Correctional Custody Unit (CCU) at Stone Bay which was remitted to 45 days restriction and 45 days extra duty after I had served seven days in CCU.  A side note, I caught a ride to the formation with Cpl. C_ who was also twenty minutes late for the same formation and who received no adverse counseling or NJP for the exact same offense.  This inequity clearly indicates my command's desire to have me discharged as soon as possible and with the lowest possible discharge characterization, a discharge which was held out like a carrot on a stick while the work of processing my discharge was conducted quietly.

5.  prior to service I was deemed to be free from a Personality Disorder by a physician selected by the government during MEPS and have not demonstrated the signs and symptoms of such a disorder since leaving the service I was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder first by a psychologist without a Medical Doctor's endorsement, a diagnosis that was disagreed with prior to entry into the service, as noted by a MEPS physician (encl. 9), and after the service, as noted by Dr. D_ D_ (encl. 13).  I have no objection to the diagnosis of a temporary and treatable diagnosis of depression made at the time as this is by its nature transient illness.  The diagnosis of a permanent and untreatable disease nature a transient by an individual without formal medical training and without review by a Medical Discharge Board before processing a life-altering diagnosis is clearly a justification for a full review of my service record and post-service performance as well as a review of the opinions of Medical Doctors before and after my service in the Marine Corps who state that I do not have this permanent and untreatable disorder.  I have enclosed both the discharge recommendation of LT. N_ (encl. 7) and his discharge progress note (encl. 8) showing that at the time of discharge from the hospital in he clearly indicated that no psychiatric testing was done and that I was fit for full duty.  He does make the claim that I have a personality disorder while admitting to not performing any objective testing.  His recommendation to return to full duty was apparently changed at a later date in what appears to be a form letter in which he recommends discharge from the service without further review.  This form letter has no addressee and didn't even identify me by name, but only as SNM (said named marine).  The fact that such an inconsistency exists should alone warrant a review of my discharge.

6.  The continued punishment of not having been granted an Honorable Discharge is inequitable when compared to the infractions I have committed during my military service  The continued punishment of a General Discharge is inequitable and unjust.  While I was in the service I committed several minor infractions.  Each of these was punished within the letter of the law while I was in the service.  This punishment alone has extended beyond the service and I believe it should be remitted for its lack of justice.  I have served seven years on probation from this last punitive action of my former command and I have served it well.  I have not had any criminal history since discharge, I have settled with a wife and newborn son, I have sought to better myself through education and community service, and I have worked to help my fellow man through home health care and my work toward licensure as a Registered Nurse.  I am a member of Phi Theta Kappa, a national honor society for academic excellence in two-year colleges and I have spent many hours tutoring fellow students.  I am currently receiving clinical training for my nursing degree and intend to continue serving by working in the Veteran's Administration healthcare system following graduation and licensure.

7.  While not listed previously due to space limitations, I believe it should be reviewed.  The evidence presented warrants a change in reason of discharge from "Convenience of the Government, Condition not a physical disability, Personality Disorder (without administrative discharge board)" to "involuntary discharge at end of obligated service".  With such a change I believe that a change of reentry code from RE-4 to RE-3G would be appropriate.  Were such changes to occur, I would seek to serve my country again, as a nurse in the Armed Services.  As we enter into these times of uncertainty at home and abroad, I believe that filling the ranks of essential specialties with those who are highly motivated and who poses skills that are both in high demand in the civilian sector and low supply within the military is essential.  I would like to serve my country again and I am fully prepared to do so if permitted.  I have contacted the Army Nurse Corps recruiting office here in Arizona and have been advised that a change in my reentry code would be required for me to enter the service as a nurse.  While I am not sure of the jurisdiction of such a request, I believe it deserves review.
Given the evidence presented of my conducted while in the service, the facts surrounding my discharge as they relate to my seeking medical attention and receiving psychological treatment instead, and my post-service conduct, I believe that my discharge should be changed from a General Under Honorable Conditions to an Honorable Discharge.  I have worked to continue my life in spite of this mark against my character and have been fortunate that the people with whom I have been employed have understood my plight.  This has not always been the case and it has caused some personal hardship through difficulty in securing employment because of the stigma attached to a military discharge that is not clearly identified as an Honorable Discharge and the diagnosis of a mental disorder that led to my discharge.  I ask that this punishment cease for the sake of justice. In addition, I ask that you review my discharge and reentry codes that I may serve my Country in its time of need and that I may serve in a capacity that is in short supply right now.  I grew up in New York City and my parents now live in Alexandria, Virginia; the attacks were very close to my heart and I have been able to do little to help in the fight against those who attacked us.  As I complete my training in nursing and prepare to enter the workforce as a Registered Nurse, I want to help others and serve my country.  I intend to do this through employment with the Veteran's Administration healthcare system as a nurse and if possible as a member of the Army Reserve.  I am ready and willing to serve my country anytime and anyplace that I am needed, if permitted to do so. I have copies of all of my records from my time in the service and can forward copies of any material that you may require during your deliberations.  This includes copies of my Service Record Book and my Service Medical Records as well as post-service records.  I have numbered each enclosure for ease of reference and I have highlighted the pertinent passages.  The original MEPS evaluation dated January 14, 1994 can be found in my original medical record if you need further verification of my prior service mental state.  Please feel free to contact Dr. D_ D_ if you need any information of my post-service mental state or post-service character as he is my current employer. If there is any further information that I may provide, if you wish for me to appear before you, or if you have any questions that I can answer please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (number deleted) or by mail at: (address deleted) I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you either during your deliberations or at the conclusion of your review of my case.

Additional issues dated September 20, 2003

Since submission of my original application for discharge review I have been able to locate documents that may be favorable to my position. The following references to discharge characterization further demonstrate that the discharge I received was inequitable by the standards that the United States Marine Corps use to determine the appropriate characterization for discharge.

1.  United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps University, Corporals Non-Commissioned Officers Program, Student Handout, CPLXO 108 - this document clearly identifies two important points, first that a 4.0 conduct mark is required for an Honorable Discharge (which I have) and second that marks are reflective of a Marines conduct during a particular time period. This second point is important because it demonstrates that the Non-Judicial Punishment proceedings were already considered during my last evaluation period and therefore should not be considered separately from my average conduct marks, which identify my conduct as “Average” according to ALMAR 360/97.
2.  Marine Corps Separation And Retirement Manual, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1004, Section 3, Sub-Section a - notes clearly that the minimum conduct mark for an Honorable Discharge is 4.0, again a mark that I received as an average across the entire length of my service as computed by the service under the formula noted in table 1-1 note 1.  Also as noted in table 1-1 rule 4 of the same manual, I have met the requirements for an Honorable Discharge, as opposed to rule 5, which directs a General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) for conduct marks below 4.0. Both rules refer to special provisions of rule 8 as exceptions. Rule 8 notes that individuals being discharged under the provisions of Chapter 6 of the same manual should followed.
3.  Chapter 6 of Marine Corps Separation And Retirement Manual includes paragraph 6203, the paragraph I was processed under according to my DD2 14, refers to table 6-1 and paragraph 1004 as the rules governing discharge characterization. Table 6-1 note 1 states that an Honorable Discharge is authorized “unless a Marine is in an entry-level status”, a condition that I satisfy, and note 5 states that an Honorable Discharge is authorized “in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 1004”. Referring back to paragraph 1004, my service conduct marks average to the minimum required and referencing table 1-1, my average conduct score was 4.0, the minimum for an Honorable Discharge, and already accounts for the 2.9 conduct score that includes the Non-Judicial Punishment proceedings as discussed in the previous paragraph. Paragraph 1004 notes: “Minimum acceptable average proficiency and conduct markings during an enlistment are 3.0 and 4.0 respectively. Failure of a Marine to achieve either of these standards is evidence of significant negative aspects, outweighing all but the most meritorious military records. Marines who do not achieve these standards should not receive an honorable discharge.”  I did achieve the stated standards, which included averaging a 2.9 conduct mark related to the Non-Judicial Punishment proceedings into my overall service conduct average.
4.  Proficiency marks at a minimum of 3.0 are required for an Honorable Discharge; at no time were my proficiency marks below this level, so I have not discussed them as an issue for review. While I make no claim to being a stellar Marine, the fact remains that according to the Marine Corps Separation And Retirement Manual, I have met the requirements for an Honorable Discharge while receiving a General Discharge. This clearly demonstrates inequity in my discharge characterization as well as challenges the presumption of regularity on the part of the government’s actions as they pertain to my discharge. I continue to hold that the discharge is unjust as noted in the previous seven issues and am including this as an additional issue, not a replacement issue. Thank You.

Sincerely,

Documentation

In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:

Applicant’s DD Form 214
Applicant’s DD Form 215
Eleven pages from Applicant’s service record
Character reference from Major, US Air Force, dated October 26, 1998
Letter from Former Captain, US Army, Veteran Vietnam, dated October 1, 2002
Letter from Applicant’s instructor, dated September 24, 2002
Character reference, dated October 10, 2002

Additional documents received by NDRB September 22, 2003

Northern Arizona University Diploma and Transcript, dated May 9, 2003
Yavapai College Diploma and Transcript, dated May 16, 2003
Letter from Prescott Police Department, dated January 16, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

	Active:   None
	Inactive: USMCR(J)		940129 - 940523	COG

Period of Service Under Review:

Date of Enlistment:  940524		Date of Discharge:  951013

Length of Service (years, months, days):

	Active:    01  04  20
	Inactive:  None

Age at Entry:  20			Years Contracted:  4

Education Level:  12			AFQT:  95

Highest Rank:  LCpl

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Proficiency:  4.0 (4)			Conduct:  4.0 (4)

Military Decorations:  None

Unit/Campaign/Service Awards:  NDSM

Days of Unauthorized Absence:  None

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PERSONALITY DISORDER, authority:  MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6203.3.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events:

950608:	Medical evaluation by a military psychologist concluded that the Applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.

	AXIS I: Major depression, recurrent, seasonal type, mild.
	AXIS II: Personality disorder NOS with narcissistic and paranoid features.

950621:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Unprofessional conduct and operating a tactical vehicle without the proper operators permit.  Specifically, on 8 June 1995 you maliciously defaced government property with profane language; on 9 June 1995 you illegally operated an M-817 wrecker which resulted in damage to a government building.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.

950810:	Medical evaluation by a military psychologist concluded that the Applicant’s personality disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.

	AXIS I:  No diagnosis.
	AXIS II: Personality disorder NOS with narcissistic, paranoid and borderline features.

950823:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86:
Specification: Absence from appointed place of duty on 0730-0820, 950811.
Awarded correctional custody for 30 days.  Appeal retracted.

950830:	Punishment awarded at NJP dated 950823 was remitted to restriction for 45 days.

950831:	Medical doctor’s addendum to recommendation for administrative separation stated that Applicant’s continued service may be harmful to himself or others.

950906:	Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct.  [Disrespectful behavior toward an NCO and disobedience of an order issued by the Commanding Officer.  Specifically, on 950904 Applicant failed to sign in for restriction in the proper uniform and when corrected by the duty NCO, became belligerent.  This behavior is unprofessional and will not be tolerated.]  Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided.

960906:	Counseled concerning his psychological evaluation during which it was determined that Applicant possessed symptoms consistent with the following diagnoses:
	AXIS I: Major depression, recurrent, seasonal type, mild.
	AXIS II: Personality disorder NOS with narcissistic and paranoid features.
Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued.

950908:	Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) for the convenience of the government due to a personality disorder, based upon a diagnosed personality disorder as evidenced by psychological evaluation.

950913:	NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91:
Specification: Insubordination toward a NCO on 1200 950904.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92:
Specification: Failure to obey an order or regulations on 1200, 950904, to wit: restriction. Orders set forth by the CO, CSSD 21.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 117:
Specification: Provoking speeches or gestures on 1200, 950904.
Awarded reduction to PFC.  Appeal retracted.

Partial discharge package missing from service record.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19951013 under honorable conditions (general) for convenience of the government due to a personality disorder (A and B).  The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C).  After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

Issues 1 and 6.  The Applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.  Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have existed during the period of enlistment in question.  No such error or inequity is evident during the Applicant’s enlistment.  Additionally, there is no law, or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in civilian life, subsequent to leaving the service.  However, the NDRB is authorized to consider outstanding post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review.  Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than Honorable discharge.  Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle, are examples of verifiable documentation that may be provided to receive consideration for relief, based on post-service conduct.  The Applicant’s evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the offenses for which he was awarded his characterization of service.  Relief not warranted.

Issues 2, 4 and Additional Issues 1-4.  When a Marine’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable.  A characterization of service of under honorable conditions (general) is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member's military record.  The Applicant’s service was marred by award of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on two occasions and adverse counseling entries on other occasions.  The Applicant’s proficiency and conduct average markings are an important consideration but not the sole determinant in the characterization of service.  The Applicant’s assertion that NJPs should not be considered in assigning a characterization of service because they are reflected in the conduct markings of a given period is without merit.  The Applicant was separated in accordance with reference (A).  The characterization of service was determined by the Marine’s service record, reference (B).  The Applicant’s conduct, to include consideration of his conduct evaluation average of 4.0, reflects his disobedience of the orders and directives that regulate good order and discipline in the naval service, and falls short of that required for an honorable characterization of service.  While he may feel that his immaturity and alleged unfair treatment from his chain of command were factors that contributed to his actions, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for his conduct or that he should not be held accountable for those actions.  An upgrade to honorable would be inappropriate.  It must be noted that most Marines serve honorably and well and therefore earn honorable discharges.   In fairness to those Marines, commanders and separation authorities are tasked to ensure that undeserving Marines receive no higher characterization than is due.  Relief denied.

Issues 3 and 5.  The Board does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated medical condition and implied incorrect diagnosis to be of sufficient nature to warrant an upgrade to his characterization of service.  There was no requirement for the Applicant’s case to be reviewed by a medical board prior to his administrative separation.  The Applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical doctors while on active duty.  No other narrative reason more clearly describes the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s processing for administrative separation.  Relief to the narrative reason for separation is therefore denied.

Issue 7.  Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces.  Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment.  A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter.  Relief is therefore denied.

The Applicant is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge.  Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.  

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A.  Paragraph 6203, CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

B.  Table 6-1, Guide for Characterization of Service, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 18 Aug 95 until Present.

C.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.  

D.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT

If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive.  You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint.  The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness.  You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “afls14.jag.af.mil”.  

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

		Naval Council of Personnel Boards
		Attn:  Naval Discharge Review Board
		720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
		Washington Navy Yard DC  20374-5023